- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- 2004 Arkansas State Indians football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:NSPORTS and GNG. I couldn't find anything about the entity on the web. Alex discussion ★ 02:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)- Note: I removed this entry from the Football delsort; the topic is about American football. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Normally Division I team seasons are considered notable. There most certainly would be plenty of off-line sources for the 2004 season to establish notability and pass
WP:GNG. The lack of online sources presently available is not an issue for me in this case. Personally I wouldn't create a season article for the program, but that's personal taste more than anything else.
WP:NSPORTS does not apply because that is a guideline for individuals and not for seasons or events. I can find no policy or guideline reason to delete the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS may not apply, but
WP:EVENTCRIT, and
WP:GNG are still relevant, and the article doesn't seem to pass.
Alex
discussion
★
18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted before, NCAA Division I football programs (especially FBS or "Division I-A" programs) tend to pass notability standards, including WP:EVENTCRIT. We can look specifically at the phrase "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" and realize that this team played #4 LSU, #17 Mizzou, and traveled to Idaho among its other games. Two ranked teams playing the same team are often used for comparisons in the voting process for the various polls plus the coverage of even just those two games would have spanned from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and a large number of other regional and local outlets. We're looking at nationwdie exposure at that point (which is expected for a Div I program) These also would be enough to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone notability achievement. That these articles haven't been archived online as of yet is no suprise to me.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS may not apply, but
WP:EVENTCRIT, and
WP:GNG are still relevant, and the article doesn't seem to pass.
Alex
discussion
★
18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Paul McDonald. An NCAA Division I- FBS football season is an easy keep. Plenty of historical precedent to keep an article like this one. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. as per Paul McDonald. Plenty of sources are available for Division I FBS teams such as this one. Brian Reading ( talk) 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- 2004 Arkansas State Indians football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:NSPORTS and GNG. I couldn't find anything about the entity on the web. Alex discussion ★ 02:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)- Note: I removed this entry from the Football delsort; the topic is about American football. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Normally Division I team seasons are considered notable. There most certainly would be plenty of off-line sources for the 2004 season to establish notability and pass
WP:GNG. The lack of online sources presently available is not an issue for me in this case. Personally I wouldn't create a season article for the program, but that's personal taste more than anything else.
WP:NSPORTS does not apply because that is a guideline for individuals and not for seasons or events. I can find no policy or guideline reason to delete the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS may not apply, but
WP:EVENTCRIT, and
WP:GNG are still relevant, and the article doesn't seem to pass.
Alex
discussion
★
18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted before, NCAA Division I football programs (especially FBS or "Division I-A" programs) tend to pass notability standards, including WP:EVENTCRIT. We can look specifically at the phrase "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" and realize that this team played #4 LSU, #17 Mizzou, and traveled to Idaho among its other games. Two ranked teams playing the same team are often used for comparisons in the voting process for the various polls plus the coverage of even just those two games would have spanned from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and a large number of other regional and local outlets. We're looking at nationwdie exposure at that point (which is expected for a Div I program) These also would be enough to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone notability achievement. That these articles haven't been archived online as of yet is no suprise to me.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS may not apply, but
WP:EVENTCRIT, and
WP:GNG are still relevant, and the article doesn't seem to pass.
Alex
discussion
★
18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Paul McDonald. An NCAA Division I- FBS football season is an easy keep. Plenty of historical precedent to keep an article like this one. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. as per Paul McDonald. Plenty of sources are available for Division I FBS teams such as this one. Brian Reading ( talk) 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.